“GIC does not use CPF funds to invest”
-
Originally posted by TheGoodEarth:
There is nothing easier to segregate then the difference of the Government's intentions and the actions as clearly seen from what has transpired and from the words used in their speeches.
You have given a good account of the beginning and purpose of CPF but I can't follow your later espousals without detecting a hint of your suspicion of the govt.'s intention in the lastest CPF twist. The earlier part was factual, the later part seemed clouded with political overtone. Like I said in some other threads - set aside the personal gripe, political agenda or sympathy and look squarely at the circumstances giving rise (or need) for a change (or twist) to the CPF.
While it is good to question, debate, oppose - one must not be prejudicial, bias, factor in personal agenda or worse still vendatta. I see over and over again an UNDERLYING assertion in all the threads I read: that the gahmen is up to no good, delaying withdrawal so as to profit from poor CPF or rich CPF members, using the fund for personal empire-building, dynastic entrenchment, and a whole lot of unconnected issues and allegations.
The bottom-line is this: Are you against the scheme per se or are you against the gahmen or some political figures? I know this is difficult to segregate cos the annuity scheme is a gahmen initiative not a private one.
The beginning of the post was factual based on events that had been documented, while the future is more murky as the course of events from what had been documented differs from what has transpired and yet to be recorded in historical acounts - all of which can only lead us to think and conclude that this Government has been dishonest to Singaporeans.
Leaving aside your own bias and knee-jerk reaction to see every negative post towards the Government as a political agenda or personal prejudice, can you even begin to appreciate the gravity of what the Government is proposing and expect Singaporeans to swallow ?
It is easy for the Government to dictate and force Singaporeans to accept that what has been decided is based on their own idea of it being the Best for Singaporeans.
Surely, the collective wisdom of all clear thinking and yet-to-be senile Elderly - as will as those soon to be elderly - will be of higher standards than that of a handful of MIW Elite in Cabinet ?
If this Government aka MIW respect Singaporean and will make Singaporean responsible for ourselves, then the Government aka MIW should put this Annuity Scheme to a Referendum, and with both sides accepting the outcome as a National Project.
However, the Referendum should be transparently prepared, and not in the same crooked one-sided manner that guarantee a single outcome in the purposeful manner that the MIW desire - as had happened in the cunningly designed Referendum to join Malaysia. -
wah your political agenda is beyond me. Like I said: I see the need for annuity scheme based on the circumstances arising not from political objectives however you want to view them in your own scheme of thing. All I can detect is that you have little reason to support or not to support the scheme but plenty of political vibes.Originally posted by Atobe:There is nothing easier to segregate then the difference of the Government's intentions and the actions as clearly seen from what has transpired and from the words used in their speeches.
The beginning of the post was factual based on events that had been documented, while the future is more murky as the course of events from what had been documented differs from what has transpired and yet to be recorded in historical acounts - all of which can only lead us to think and conclude that this Government has been dishonest to Singaporeans.
Leaving aside your own bias and knee-jerk reaction to see every negative post towards the Government as a political agenda or personal prejudice, can you even begin to appreciate the gravity of what the Government is proposing and expect Singaporeans to swallow ?
It is easy for the Government to dictate and force Singaporeans to accept that what has been decided is based on their own idea of it being the Best for Singaporeans.
Surely, the collective wisdom of all clear thinking and yet-to-be senile Elderly - as will as those soon to be elderly - will be of higher standards than that of a handful of MIW Elite in Cabinet ?
If this Government aka MIW respect Singaporean and will make Singaporean responsible for ourselves, then the Government aka MIW should put this Annuity Scheme to a Referendum, and with both sides accepting the outcome as a National Project.
However, the Referendum should be transparently prepared, and not in the same crooked one-sided manner that guarantee a single outcome in the purposeful manner that the MIW desire - as had happened in the cunningly designed Referendum to join Malaysia.
Perhaps, you can suggest an alternative solution - present it to the opposition for them to do battle for you, or you can even go to parliament and petition.
Let me hear your alternative, not political vibes! -
Originally posted by TheGoodEarth:Thank you. At least you have answered this part:
"The bottom-line is this: Are you against the scheme per se or are you against the gahmen or some political figures? I know this is difficult to segregate cos the annuity scheme is a gahmen initiative not a private one."Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:PAP politicians are taking public money to pay themselves indecent salaries instead of using the public funds for the annuity, true or false?
The scheme is just another hidden tax, true or false? -
I see pro-PAP people always seem to argue like the PAP?
Don't look at important things but wave about unimportant issue and try to distract? Make childish accusation and all.
"Annuity good!!! You don't like you got political agenda!!!"
Bloody grow up! Annuity good or not who cares? They trying to tell me how to spend my money! I am not given a choice! I am treated like I need them to look after me or I die!!! This is the problem!
UNDERSTAND???
Got river to cross, some people want to take bridge, some people want to swim, some people want to stay and don't cross. I want to decide ok? If you too childish to make your own decision and want someone to hold your hand and tell you must use bridge, you own problem.
Bridge best way or not, who cares? -
*CLAP* *CLAP* *CLAP*Originally posted by RatFink:I see pro-PAP people always seem to argue like the PAP?
Don't look at important things but wave about unimportant issue and try to distract? Make childish accusation and all.
"Annuity good!!! You don't like you got political agenda!!!"
Bloody grow up! Annuity good or not who cares? They trying to tell me how to spend my money! I am not given a choice! I am treated like I need them to look after me or I die!!! This is the problem!
UNDERSTAND???
Got river to cross, some people want to take bridge, some people want to swim, some people want to stay and don't cross. I want to decide ok? If you too childish to make your own decision and want someone to hold your hand and tell you must use bridge, you own problem.
Bridge best way or not, who cares? -
This ain't a song for the broken-hearted
No silent prayer for the faith-departed
I ain't gonna be just a face in the crowd
You're gonna hear my voice
When I shout it out loud
[Chorus:]
It's my life
It's now or never
I ain't gonna live forever
I just want to live while I'm alive
(It's my life)
My heart is like an open highway
Like Frankie said
I did it my way
I just wanna live while I'm alive
It's my life
Bon Jovi Lyrics » It's My Life Lyrics -
You forgot the best part. The group of people who first sucked up all your resources to build hovercrafts for themselves leaving you no option but to use a bridge, swim or not cross. They then grab you by yout neck and order you to use the bridge. As the bridge collapses while you're on it, they float off on their hovercrafts screaming, "Don't blame us!! Blame yourself! You can't expect us to do everything for you!"Originally posted by RatFink:I see pro-PAP people always seem to argue like the PAP?
Don't look at important things but wave about unimportant issue and try to distract? Make childish accusation and all.
"Annuity good!!! You don't like you got political agenda!!!"
Bloody grow up! Annuity good or not who cares? They trying to tell me how to spend my money! I am not given a choice! I am treated like I need them to look after me or I die!!! This is the problem!
UNDERSTAND???
Got river to cross, some people want to take bridge, some people want to swim, some people want to stay and don't cross. I want to decide ok? If you too childish to make your own decision and want someone to hold your hand and tell you must use bridge, you own problem.
Bridge best way or not, who cares? -
The trouble is with your expertise in having a twisted reading ability - that is married to some purposeful efforts to derail what is written with our own nonsensical interpretation.Originally posted by TheGoodEarth:wah your political agenda is beyond me. Like I said: I see the need for annuity scheme based on the circumstances arising not from political objectives however you want to view them in your own scheme of thing. All I can detect is that you have little reason to support or not to support the scheme but plenty of political vibes.
Perhaps, you can suggest an alternative solution - present it to the opposition for them to do battle for you, or you can even go to parliament and petition.
Let me hear your alternative, not political vibes!
If you cannot read and interprete accurately, and will find the political vibes to be so troubling, why do you not take up your suggestion and bury your head into the vibes that you find trouble with - that way, you will not have to experience whatever vibes that maybe troubling you. -
Indeed it was quite a trouble reading your political vibes. I did say they were beyond me. Trying to untwist your vibes would have derail the MRT train I was in, and I am quite sure annuity experts would have trouble keeping their heads above your vibes. I rather marry a cheena concubine than to interpret you nonsensical vibes.Originally posted by Atobe:The trouble is with your expertise in having a twisted reading ability - that is married to some purposeful efforts to derail what is written with our own nonsensical interpretation.
If you cannot read and interprete accurately, and will find the political vibes to be so troubling, why do you not take up your suggestion and bury your head into the vibes that you find trouble with - that way, you will not have to experience whatever vibes that maybe troubling you. -
In retrospect, adobe is basically saying his suggestion is to put the issue of annuity to a referendum and let the people decide.Originally posted by TheGoodEarth:Indeed it was quite a trouble reading your political vibes. I did say they were beyond me. Trying to untwist your vibes would have derail the MRT train I was in, and I am quite sure annuity experts would have trouble keeping their heads above your vibes. I rather marry a cheena concubine than to interpret you nonsensical vibes.
Other alternatives is to:
1. implement the annuity scheme but provide a transparent 'op-out choice' for singaporeans.
2. revisit the CPF drawing board and establish a criteria to catagorize those whose financial background truly require this annuity scheme, as opposed to those who are self-sufficient.
There are plenty of ways to make the case more palatable to the people, but the motives appear questionable. Just like the current issue of ERP price hikes and COE prices. If the govt truly wanted to reduce traffic jams, they would jack up the price to an exhorbitant rate and waive these same charges on taxis and public transport; overnight, people will think twice before stepping into their cars. Instead, they permit incremental increases of 50 cents for ERP gantries. Ultimately, the only outcome will be that traffic users get used to the rates and drive through the gantries anyway. Subsequent increases will have minimal effect on traffic conditions. And all this while the govt happily pockets the additional charges.
Is it any surprise people will speculate that the perceived motive is merely to pocket more money while creating the facade of wanting to improve traffic jams etc? -
As what the law is passing or going to pass... first 20k in acc not able to use for investment basis...
Thus depriving the public a chance to earn more money for themselves to use after their retirement.
I do not understand that there should be restictions to how we invest our money unless they are thinking of using them to invest so that CPF can benefit more....
-
wah .... annuity scheme is so serious a matter that require referundum?? Where is the perspective???Originally posted by BillyBong:In retrospect, adobe is basically saying his suggestion is to put the issue of annuity to a referendum and let the people decide.
...........?
I bet with you this: if the gahmen now say that the annuity scheme is for free ..... what do you think some idiots here will say? -
It seemed the govt is having diffuclty to persuade people to accept this annuity thing as the way they having a dialogue with the grassroot leader.Originally posted by BillyBong:In retrospect, adobe is basically saying his suggestion is to put the issue of annuity to a referendum and let the people decide.
Other alternatives is to:
1. implement the annuity scheme but provide a transparent 'op-out choice' for singaporeans.
2. revisit the CPF drawing board and establish a criteria to catagorize those whose financial background truly require this annuity scheme, as opposed to those who are self-sufficient.
There are plenty of ways to make the case more palatable to the people, but the motives appear questionable. Just like the current issue of ERP price hikes and COE prices. If the govt truly wanted to reduce traffic jams, they would jack up the price to an exhorbitant rate and waive these same charges on taxis and public transport; overnight, people will think twice before stepping into their cars. Instead, they permit incremental increases of 50 cents for ERP gantries. Ultimately, the only outcome will be that traffic users get used to the rates and drive through the gantries anyway. Subsequent increases will have minimal effect on traffic conditions. And all this while the govt happily pockets the additional charges.
Is it any surprise people will speculate that the perceived motive is merely to pocket more money while creating the facade of wanting to improve traffic jams etc? -
surely, any scheme that will take away your money without consent even when you die require your permission. don't you think so?Originally posted by TheGoodEarth:wah .... annuity scheme is so serious a matter that require referundum?? Where is the perspective???
I bet with you this: if the gahmen now say that the annuity scheme is for free ..... what do you think some idiots here will say? -
You consider something that concerns every singaporean and their savings not serious enough to warrent a referendum?Originally posted by TheGoodEarth:wah .... annuity scheme is so serious a matter that require referundum?? Where is the perspective???
I bet with you this: if the gahmen now say that the annuity scheme is for free ..... what do you think some idiots here will say?
Let's also take your wager one step further: is it even remotely POSSIBLE for our govt to hand out freebies?"There is no free lunch...." ~ PM Lee Hsien Loong
-
Originally posted by BillyBong:
No, I don't think the issue is one that requires a national referundum. When CPF was first started, it was already made COMPULSORY. Was there a referundum? Tax is also compulsory - was there a referundum? National Service is compulsory, was there a referundum? Again: it is the right perspective. Don't just follow the lines many take without giving a serious thought.
[/i][/b]
Coming back to annuity - go take up a finance course or actuarial science. You wil get a better idea than the many posts made here. Lately, the newspapers carried many good articles - a lot of arguments. Many of them are due to ignorance of what an annuity is and how it works. It is not something new: insurance companies already have such schemes.
What is new: making it compulsory for CPF members to susbcribe to this scheme. All the debates here only tell me one thing: the extreme ignorance on this subject plus linking personal gripes and political vibes.
You have to rise above these ignorance and personal agenda. If not, you will remain in the clouds.
As for my wager: just a challenge - to see if the annuity is free - what would the same people say? You can hold back what PM said about no free lunch, for the time being. -
Your comparisons aren't apple to apple.Originally posted by TheGoodEarth:No, I don't think the issue is one that requires a national referundum. When CPF was first started, it was already made COMPULSORY. Was there a referundum? Tax is also compulsory - was there a referundum? National Service is compulsory, was there a referundum? Again: it is the right perspective. Don't just follow the lines many take without giving a serious thought.
Tax is a REQUIREMENT. Without it, where will any govt be able to fund an infrastructure or manage a country?
CPF, though questionable, does not require the people to pay any additional cost; it merely restricts withdrawal to a 'retirement' age.
And given our geography with our local neighbours as well as racial and cultural differences, national service was clearly a NECESSITY at that time. It continues to act as a deterrent to would-be aggressors. Hardly anyone, then and now, will disagree that National service should be continued.
The annuity scheme, on the other hand, requires that one use a portion of one's CPF to PAY for an 'insurance-styled' coverage for extreme old age, an age that has been proven statistically inept in SG but which nonetheless was selected by our govt and used as a benchmark.
In essence, the govt is suggesting, forcefully through legislation, that we fork out a compulsory sum of our own monies to pay for our own well-being.
Does that sound right to you?
Actuarial science is surely not required to comprehend something as simplistic as an annuity; are you likening an annuity scheme to the complexity of astrophysics that a professional qualification is required for basic interpretation?Originally posted by TheGoodEarth:Coming back to annuity - go take up a finance course or actuarial science. You wil get a better idea than the many posts made here. Lately, the newspapers carried many good articles - a lot of arguments. Many of them are due to ignorance of what an annuity is and how it works. It is not something new: insurance companies already have such schemes.
As you mentioned, the 'new' aspect is making this scheme mandatory by default.Originally posted by TheGoodEarth:What is new: making it compulsory for CPF members to susbcribe to this scheme. All the debates here only tell me one thing: the extreme ignorance on this subject plus linking personal gripes and political vibes.
You have to rise above these ignorance and personal agenda. If not, you will remain in the clouds.
The political vibes should not bother anyone at this point. What does bother me is that for the first time, my own govt is ordering me to spend my money in a manner they deem fit.
Your wager isn't a challenge really. Anything 'free' will be gulped down by the people. Same with any country whose govt is prepared to provide 'free' handouts.Originally posted by TheGoodEarth:As for my wager: just a challenge - to see if the annuity is free - what would the same people say? You can hold back what PM said about no free lunch, for the time being.
I put 'free' in inverted commas because that so-called freebie is actually paid out of our taxpayer's monies. -
why you all bother reply to stupid people. we all talking about PAP taking away our right to say what we want do with our money, this STUPID person still talking annuity good or bad.
-
There's only one idiot here and I'll reply to his post anyway.
Get it through your thick skull. The issue is not the annuity itself. The issue is the governing party taking liberties with our monies; Its about our right to our monies being taken away from us.
If they give us "free" (as much as "free" is actually coming from our tax payer money) annuity, then the issue is no longer there now is it?
The HUGE step they are taking here - their right to determine if our personal monies that we stored with them for safe keeping should be returned to us, or spent as they deem fit - DEFINATELY requires a referundum.Originally posted by TheGoodEarth:wah .... annuity scheme is so serious a matter that require referundum?? Where is the perspective???
I bet with you this: if the gahmen now say that the annuity scheme is for free ..... what do you think some idiots here will say? -
Ladies and Gentlemen, we have in our midst the usual 'agent provocateur', who is not serious about any exchange of views or ideas, but more interested in vibes that he feels from the crap that he throw at others.
It is from an accumulation of crap that makes the earth good, should we be surprised that only crap can come from one adopt the nick 'The GoodEarth' without any separation between the words 'good' and 'earth' ?
No need to be surprised at the stupidity in the crap that is released from him, as amongst all the characters in this Speaker's Corner, this one surely takes the cake. -
good thing that not all PAP MPs are yes men
Singapore PAP MP Ong Kian Min said:
“I cannot understand how the government can say, it will not be responsible for providing for my retirement, but I must lend the government my retirement savings for investments, and any gains earned on the money is not my money” (quoted in Straits Times, 23 Sept 07). -
Guys, TheGoodEarth is trying to discuss the cost-benefit perspective of the annuity from a financial perspective and free from all political agenda. He might not be able to see the "big picture" but calling him as stupid and crucifying his views via a witch-hunt of sorts after labeling him as a pro-PAP sympathizer is simply uncalled for.
TheGoodEarth, no one over here is doubting the benefits of an annuity and definitely no one can take that point away from you. The main gist is that we are not given a choice over the annuity even though the cost of the annuity is obtained from very own monies. The fact is that the Singaporean population wants to be given choices regarding the decisions made by the govt and no longer wanting the govt to force-feed their decisions down our throats.
Edit: Typos. -
Problem is, this chap knows only the superficial aspects of annuity and opines like all Singaporeans should appreciate the govt's efforts to implement annuity.Originally posted by Paradise Lost:Guys, TheGoodEarth is trying to discuss the cost-benefit perspective of the annuity from a financial perspective and free from all political agenda. He might not be able to see the "big picture" but calling him as stupid and crucifying his views via a witch-hunt of sorts after labeling him as a pro-PAP sympathizer is simply uncalled for.
TheGoodEarth, no one over here is doubting the benefits of an annuity and definitely no one can take that point away from you. The main gist is that we are not given a choice over the annuity even though the cost of the annuity is obtained from very own monies. The fact is that the Singaporean population wants to be given choices regarding the decisions made by the govt and no longer wanting the govt to stop force-feeding their decisions down our throats.
What right does he have to comment then, given his severely limited understanding? Worse, he says that a lot here do not understand annuity when he himself knows little better.
What about all those statistics that I have handed to him on a silver platter that debunks the needs for annuity?
http://www.sgforums.com/?action=thread_display&thread_id=281750&page=2
Obviously, there are those who are bestowed opportunities time and again to see the light but choose to remain blind. -
Whatever the cpf scheme applies to Sporean doesn't apply to me!
That is why I still choose to remain as PR despite of the recurring offer made to be to become a Sporean.
whatever the policies are, just try to get urself as educated as possible. Going beyond a uni degree really helps alot esp in the amount of salary u can draw per month. A master degree and a right job gets u a comfortable pay of 9K per month. Investing my savings( together with my siblings working in Spore as well) in my own country( Msia ) by buying shops at suitable location and private houses have very attractive returns too.( S$9K gives more than RM18K ). My siblings really help me alot, otherwise we wont be able to buy quite a few properties and at the same time without stretching all my savings and monthly income.
Hopefully I can retire before I hit 60. BTW, investing in Msia is really dangerous for pure breed Sporean. U guys dont know how Msia works whereas I know how both Spore and Msia works. So as a piece of advice, dun anyhow invest in Msia and dun ask me how to invest either. I am not here to advertise my investing skills.
Good luck to all in thy pursuit of wealth and fame. But remember, family tie is still the most important!!! -
Unfortunately, his views are not even his own, but mere parrot like repetition that my Pioneer Recorder will do a better job after editing all the crap out.Originally posted by Paradise Lost:Guys, TheGoodEarth is trying to discuss the cost-benefit perspective of the annuity from a financial perspective and free from all political agenda. He might not be able to see the "big picture" but calling him as stupid and crucifying his views via a witch-hunt of sorts after labeling him as a pro-PAP sympathizer is simply uncalled for.
TheGoodEarth, no one over here is doubting the benefits of an annuity and definitely no one can take that point away from you. The main gist is that we are not given a choice over the annuity even though the cost of the annuity is obtained from very own monies. The fact is that the Singaporean population wants to be given choices regarding the decisions made by the govt and no longer wanting the govt to stop force-feeding their decisions down our throats.
His interest is more at derailing the thread by senseless arguments, taunts and ridicule so as to invite negative reactions to flame him.
Why waste time being sensible and simply fullfill his death-wish at every opportunity - while a parallel track at sensible discussion can continue separately ?